ROOP LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing impugned punishment order of removal from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority Superintendent of Police, Chittorgarh on 31.12.2006 and, so also, orders dated 07.04.2007 and 20.03.2009 passed by appellate authority and reviewing authority respectively, whereby both the higher authorities upheld the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Further prayer of the petitioner is that while quashing the aforesaid orders the respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable and, on 19.11.2005, he was assigned duty along with one other Constable Lukman Khan, belt No.61, to carry accused Mangilal Jat for attending judicial Court at Neemach from Chittorgarh jail. As per prosecution allegation, the petitioner and Lukman Khan carried accused in private bus at about 5.30 P.M. from Chittorgarh. While en route, as per allegation of the department, the petitioner consumed liquor at Jalupura bus stand and permitted accused Mangilal Jat to get down the bus for urinating. Said accused while taking advantage of the situation fled away from the custody. For the above incident, a charge sheet under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules was served upon both petitioner and Lukman Khan and, after holding regular inquiry, inquiry report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority by the inquiry officer. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the inquiry report and petitioner's contention, inflicted major penalty of removal from service against the petitioner which is under challenge in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner while attacking upon the impugned order submits that order of the Disciplinary Authority is totally non-speaking order because the ground taken by the petitioner in his representation against the inquiry report were not even considered and discussed in the order, therefore, the order impugned is illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that penalty of removal from service was inflicted against the petitioner whereas against Lukman Khan a penalty of withholding three annual grade increments with cumulative effect has been imposed and this fact itself shows that the Disciplinary Authority has practiced discrimination while inflicting penalty of removal from service against the petitioner, therefore, the order impugned is illegal and deserves to be quashed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that right from beginning the petitioner took plea that the fact of consuming liquor is totally false because the petitioner due to illness was taking medicines and smell of medicines has been wrongly considered as smell of liquor which is not proper. The fact of consuming medicines by the petitioner was to be considered by the inquiry officer, so also, the Disciplinary Authority and other authorities; but, none of the authorities has considered the petitioner's contention that he was not in drunken condition at the time when accused Mangilal Jat fled away from their custody. Therefore, non-consideration of the petitioner's plea by any of the authorities deserves to be treated as non-application of mind and further when two similarly situated persons were charge-sheeted with the same charge, then, at the time of inflicting penalty no discrimination was to be made by the Disciplinary Authority; but, in this case, admittedly the petitioner and Lukman Khan both were deployed for taking accused Mangilal Jat to the criminal Court at Neemach but petitioner has been penalized with major penalty of removal from service whereas Lukman Khan was inflicted penalty of withholding three grade increments with cumulative effect. Therefore, the orders impugned passed by Disciplinary Authority, appellate authority and reviewing authority deserve to be quashed and set aside.